Friday, April 11, 2008

National Security

A hearty three cheers to Their Lordships for sticking the boot deep into the soft parts over the BAE-Saudi corruption fiasco.
Blair's use of 'national security' to justify preventing the investigation and prosecution of possible crime is interesting only because he doesn't understand what national security actually is.
Precisely what is it that those charged with maintaining 'national security' are seeking to secure? Shallow thinkers, in which category at least 97% of the media and government can safely be included, might think they're looking to preserve shopping at Tesco, aggressive traffic wardens who slap parking tickets on Motability scooters, dirty hospitals and inefficient government IT systens. However, deeper thinkers might reach other conclusions.
They might believe that there is absolutely no point in having a national security structure if it does not respect the laws and practices from which it flows - impartial justice, clean practices and the rule of law. Such appurtenances are the very essence of our national security - not shaven-headed goons wandering round airports like particularly stupid apartheid-era white South African policemen itching to enforce the Pass Laws.
By intervening in the SFO's investigation, Blair managed to subvert, not enhance, national security; and Their Lordships deserve a G & T for putting him back in line. Well done, m'luds.


lettersfromatory said...

If there was ever any doubt about how deceitful Tony Blair was, this is it.

The only difference between this and the Iraq war is that the High Court have looked into this dodgy deal whereas they haven't investigated Blair preventing the evidence over the Iraq war coming out. How I long for him to be brought to justice.

Rob said...

Talking of national security:

wonderfulforhisage said...

Hear, hear.

And in my view this stems from the reversal of the adage 'Ends don't justify means'. Adapting your text slightly it becomes - '....there is absolutely no point in having an end structure if it does not respect/reflect the practices from which it flows'.

NuLabour was built on the premise that ends do justify means as is Cameron's 'modern' Tory Party.

But, what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world/keys to no.10, and lose his own (and the Tory Party's) soul?

[Hat tip; St. Mark 8:36]

Update: St. Anthony Bliar writes: "About fifteen million quid and counting, actually."

Nof folled by these lying treacherous bastards said...

I made this point to the Times but they don't seem to like it.

As most of us who are interested in these things know, the Americans and Brit intelligence services share everything, so fucking what if the Saudis won't talk to us, we will still get the same info from the yanks.

So it is a bullshit argument.

Antipholus Papps said...

It made my blood boil when I heard that snivelling shit Goldsmith say the 'national interest' "outweighed the need to maintain the rule of law". The rule of law is the national interest you criminal fuck! And this was from the nominal attorney general!

Roger Thornhill said...

antipholus: abso 'kin loot-ley right.

Democracy is not the end goal here, but Rule of Law. Democracy is just the least worst way to reduce the chances of Rule of Law being undermined. It is NO guarantee, as we have just seen.

Rob said...

"The rule of law is the national interest you criminal fuck"

Hmm, that's a bit rigid if you ask me. It is perfectly possible for the national interest to be imperilled by a law, say one which prevents you from deporting terrorists who are a threat to national security. Obviously the answer is to repeal that law, but what if it is a European law and cannot be repealed?

Anyway, Goldsmith's defence is a red herring - national interest wasn't at stake here, but government embarassment.

Ed Balls said...

So What!

Devil's Kitchen said...


Don't you mean "so weak"?


Anonymous said...

BAE is small shit.

They let Lisbon through.

I think they just about negated their reason for existence.

Now they're coming on stroppy?

No pensions at stake on BAE

ed said...

I'd normally object, but I don't see what is wrong with bribery.

Peter J said...

The real problem is (1) the British government is clearly trying to weasel its way out of a sticky situation (unpleasant to see) and (2) the self-serving "rights" lobby is trying to do everything possible to undermine British interests (using British taxpayers money, oddly enough!).

Is it really a shock? Arab-world arms deal requiring bribes? That's how they do things there. Why don't we go the full hog and say "please don't be Muslim because we don't agree with that here". If an international client is offering a £40Bn+ contract, give them the terms they want (unless it conficts with your national interest).

That's not to say that WE agree with corruption or that WE want to live under sharia law. And I think that we should stamp our all corruption in the UK and the EU since it seems clear that such behaviour weakens business efficiency and contradicts OUR ideas of the rule of law.

We should also of course seek to enforce our anti-corruption guidelines regarding how our donor-aid money is spend by recipient governments. If Western people feel that we should give money to help the less well-off of the world, they should at least seek to ensure that those funds are spent correctly.

There is a huge difference, though, betweeen how WE manage our affairs and upon what conditions we give our money and seeking to impose our standards upon other governments spending THEIR money.

Maybe we can make the world a better place. But let's not hold our breath. And maybe we should examine our recent track record at home first before we try and export our "solutions" to other countries...

Chalcedon said...

'Ang on!!! This here big deal, is just exactly that. Thousands of high tech jobs are dependent on this massive contract. The way of doing business outside of Northern Europe and North America, is focused on the squeeze, a bit of corruption to ease the wheels, to oil the machine. So, 'consultancy fees' get paid. No harm done, it's just money, and money well spent if massive profits are injected into UKplc.

I have no problem in taking loads of money from the Saudis. I do have a problem with them interfering with UK gov. Bliar should have told the SFO to bugger off right from the start. BAE systems did all this outside of the UK and that should be an end of it.

This pipsqueak anti arms sale pressure group should be told to take a hike in the national interest. The only security mater is job security.

GCooper said...

Chalcedon and peter j are right. The Saudis rob us blind for oil, which money they then squander as they please.

Bliar and his crooked chums were, for once, quite right. It's none of our bloody business how this bunch of crooks choose to do things. Our job is getting some of our damned oil money back - not snuggle up to the sanctimonious ultra-Leftists in the anti-arms trade lobby.